The Werewolf Problem

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Is suicide ever a moral obligation?

Sub-question, is imprisonment without an offence ever justified?

The scenario is simple: Werewolves exist and there is no cure for lycanthropy. Murders are frequent, with the werewolf almost always the culprit. Younger werewolves especially lose control when they transform, and they hurt people, sometimes even if they take precautions. Moon Centres open, so werewolves may safely sequester themselves, and there have been incidents even so. Sometimes the Moon Centre proves to be insecure, letting an entire pack of werewolves out into the street to slaughter humans, and some simply forget when the full moon is. There are werewolves who have never checked into a Moon Centre and never killed anyone. They resent being forced to do anything, but these are exceptions and the problem is serious.

Is it right to simply kill all werewolves?

Is it right or fair to ask that all werewolves voluntarily end their lives to protect humans?

Is it right or fair to imprison all werewolves to protect humans?

[boatsnguitars]

Question for Debate: Is suicide ever a moral obligation?

Sub-question, is imprisonment without an offence ever justified?

The scenario is simple: Werewolves exist and there is no cure for lycanthropy. Murders are frequent, with the werewolf almost always the culprit. Younger werewolves especially lose control when they transform, and they hurt people, sometimes even if they take precautions. Moon Centres open, so werewolves may safely sequester themselves, and there have been incidents even so. Sometimes the Moon Centre proves to be insecure, letting an entire pack of werewolves out into the street to slaughter humans, and some simply forget when the full moon is. There are werewolves who have never checked into a Moon Centre and never killed anyone. They resent being forced to do anything, but these are exceptions and the problem is serious.

Is it right to simply kill all werewolves?

Is it right or fair to ask that all werewolves voluntarily end their lives to protect humans?

Is it right or fair to imprison all werewolves to protect humans?

Which moral framework are you assuming? If one believes there are objective moral values, and suicide is not allowed, then you have your answer.

Werewolves (and other people who pose a danger to society, such as one with a disease, genetic abnormality, pedophilia, murderous rage, etc.) probably need to be assessed on a individual basis. It why War is the epitome of the loss of humanity and control. There is nothing worse than War because in War the death of innocent people is justified. Once you say it is a War (real war, or 'war on drugs') you are announcing to society that innocent people will die to fix the perceived problem. Yet, as we see, not all Wars solve the problem.

So, I'd suggest, with the examples given that the moral thing to do is treat each case individually and ask if the action will, in fact, cure the problem. Would killing all werewolves solve the werewolf problem? Yes. But that could be said about Global Warming: killing all humans would solve the problem.

[Purple Knight]

So, I'd suggest, with the examples given that the moral thing to do is treat each case individually and ask if the action will, in fact, cure the problem. Would killing all werewolves solve the werewolf problem? Yes. But that could be said about Global Warming: killing all humans would solve the problem.

The relevant difference is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we kill everyone to stop global warming, there are then no people around to enjoy the pristine planet. If we kill all werewolves, then there are still humans to enjoy the vastly more peaceful world.

Case-by-case may not solve everything. Everyone who newly becomes a werewolf thinks they will be the exception. They will be able to control themselves. Every natural-born werewolf, approaching sexual maturity and his first transformation, also thinks, "I will be the exception. There's no way I will murder anyone, so restrictions on me violate my rights." but then, the majority at least hurt people, and many kill. Then, the infected thinks, "It's not my fault I was bitten!" and the natural thinks, "It's not my fault how I was born!" but people are dying in droves.

[boatsnguitars]

So, I'd suggest, with the examples given that the moral thing to do is treat each case individually and ask if the action will, in fact, cure the problem. Would killing all werewolves solve the werewolf problem? Yes. But that could be said about Global Warming: killing all humans would solve the problem.

The relevant difference is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we kill everyone to stop global warming, there are then no people around to enjoy the pristine planet. If we kill all werewolves, then there are still humans to enjoy the vastly more peaceful world.

However, if werewolves aren't necessarily bad (if they could learn to live peaceably) it would be the same situation.

Case-by-case may not solve everything. Everyone who newly becomes a werewolf thinks they will be the exception. They will be able to control themselves. Every natural-born werewolf, approaching sexual maturity and his first transformation, also thinks, "I will be the exception. There's no way I will murder anyone, so restrictions on me violate my rights." but then, the majority at least hurt people, and many kill. Then, the infected thinks, "It's not my fault I was bitten!" and the natural thinks, "It's not my fault how I was born!" but people are dying in droves.

Since this is speculative: What if the only reason that they kill is because they haven't had the proper education, or proper strategy to deal with the issue? Perhaps they pnly need some medicine to curb their murderous rage, or have access to some resources. Sure, there will be some who get out of line, but this is a bit like the gun debate, perhaps? Do we regulate them, knowing that there will be a few psychopaths that kill.

Let's switch "werewolf" for "white males" or "republicans" and see if killing them all solves the gun violence problem?

[Purple Knight]

However, if werewolves aren't necessarily bad (if they could learn to live peaceably) it would be the same situation.

The fundamental question would be, with all the interventions possible, that will not hurt the werewolves, is there an acceptable level of loss of life?

Let's switch "werewolf" for "white males" or "republicans" and see if killing them all solves the gun violence problem?

This is kind of what I'm getting at, but I think the gun thing is a bad analogy because no one category of people has a monopoly on gun violence. In my scenario, werewolves would have a monopoly or virtual monopoly on lycanthropy-caused violence. The key is that the cause, is literally the thing they are. The best parallel we have in our society is that whites have a monopoly on racism and oppression. The cause of them doing that is (with a few extra steps) literally the thing they are. There might be a few who are good allies and do more good than harm, but it involves going against their nature and it'll never be the case that most people do that.

Conservatives and Liberals both have their pet issues, but the going rate seems to be, you just have to forgive people if they can't help it. You can't commit genocide or even spay and neuter an entire population even if that would make society a lot better for those remaining and we know so. People say, surely there is some other way. But we keep looking and we don't find any other ways. What level of oppression is acceptable? What level of loss of life is acceptable?

[boatsnguitars]

However, if werewolves aren't necessarily bad (if they could learn to live peaceably) it would be the same situation.

The fundamental question would be, with all the interventions possible, that will not hurt the werewolves, is there an acceptable level of loss of life?

Let's switch "werewolf" for "white males" or "republicans" and see if killing them all solves the gun violence problem?

This is kind of what I'm getting at, but I think the gun thing is a bad analogy because no one category of people has a monopoly on gun violence. In my scenario, werewolves would have a monopoly or virtual monopoly on lycanthropy-caused violence. The key is that the cause, is literally the thing they are. The best parallel we have in our society is that whites have a monopoly on racism and oppression. The cause of them doing that is (with a few extra steps) literally the thing they are. There might be a few who are good allies and do more good than harm, but it involves going against their nature and it'll never be the case that most people do that.

Conservatives and Liberals both have their pet issues, but the going rate seems to be, you just have to forgive people if they can't help it. You can't commit genocide or even spay and neuter an entire population even if that would make society a lot better for those remaining and we know so. People say, surely there is some other way. But we keep looking and we don't find any other ways. What level of oppression is acceptable? What level of loss of life is acceptable?

I immediately thought of this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... le/261532/

I'm American, so I wasn't raised to accept this kind of Justice, but there is something good about it. Surely, the Christians might agree - at least, the non-American Christians who would probably vehemently disagree (which puts me in better company, I suppose).

I just got done writing up a thing about the Church, AI and Morality, so my head is there. That is, I'm thinking that as a society we really need to address harmful ideas. Racism under AI is going to be brutal. Everything is going to be brutal. There will be little ability to control the base impulses of hateful people.

Imagine:
1. Video from 20 different cell phones of a Black man raping a white girl, while black people watch. 10 video interviews of people. Testimony from the victim and her family. News articles. All produced by AI.
2. AI bot attacks on Black institutions or individuals, because they were Black. Bank accounts frozen, property records deleted.
3. etc.

There will be no stopping hateful people from producing such things. Sure, even against white people. Police. Politicians. Us.

So, I imagine that if we don't get a handle on it soon, it will get immeasurably worse. News reports of race riots - a la, War of the Worlds - but convincing. AI can even mimic real reporters voices and face.

Clearly, the goal would be to stop it and limit it to no deaths. However, the technology to foment violence has far outpaced the technology to stop it.

[Purple Knight]

I immediately thought of this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... le/261532/

I'm sure Norway's system does work better. The point is in preventing crime, not punishing wrong, and people aren't idiots. Humans are like the third smartest species on the planet, so generally they can actually do what they set out to do.

Norway's system would not work in America, where populations that are genetically disparate are fundamentally at odds, and even rewarded for playing to win. The individual being rehabilitated wouldn't change the fact that the population most willing to engage in harmful behaviour toward the other side would simply prevail. And it's not necessarily something we want, that whichever side plays dirtier and nastier ultimately comes out on top.

Racial competition is just a natural by-product of universal competition. The reason Norway can do different is not only because it's more homogeneous, but because America's brand of cutthroat capitalism has some very nasty unavoidable by-products our justice system must deal with. Norway doesn't make absolutely sure to adequately punish the criminal, and it doesn't have to, because the system doesn't naturally allow the criminal to come out on top. Norway is capitalist, but it's not cutthroat capitalist. If people are taken care of, there's not a massive incentive to commit crime to get ahead. Where there is such an incentive, the law must balance it my making the Expected Value of crime negative - people must expect to lose from crime, and not win. If people expect to win from crime, in cutthroat capitalism, everyone who can be a criminal, will be, and anyone unwilling to be a criminal even if it is the logical, winningest option, will face genetic punishment and ultimately extinction for their foolishness.

Remember when you said, trans people face disproportionate violence? I agree that tribal violence is a huge deal, but if we're called to just let it go, and not punish the attacker adequately, in a country like ours, the most violent tribe just wins. People are always out to win. If they want to eradicate trans people, in a system like Norway's, it will not take the bigoted side long to realise that they can wipe out the targets of their rage. Oh, look, another pride convention got bombed. Terrible loss, that. Let's focus on the welfare of the bomber now. See how this won't work in America? The fact that Norway's system works relies on the fact that Norwegians won't do this. Americans will, because Americans are all playing to win. Those that weren't have already gone extinct.

I'm American, so I wasn't raised to accept this kind of Justice, but there is something good about it. Surely, the Christians might agree - at least, the non-American Christians who would probably vehemently disagree (which puts me in better company, I suppose).

Christians should agree with this. Those that don't are hypocrites. It's an apocalyptic religion so not caring about what works or how they're ruining society is built in. They only care about what is moral. The truest Christian smiles at that rapist, says what a good person he is on the inside, and the minute that girl screams, the expression on the true Christian's face turns to a scowling how-dare-you of disapproval and hate. They call her to forgive her attacker, love him, not judge anything he is doing is wrong. The rapist is a wonderful person, forgiven in God's eyes. But the unforgiving victim? She is evil incarnate. She is doing the one thing a Christian legitimately hates as legitimate wrong, which is thinking someone else does wrong to her. Unless she grovels and turns the other hole, saying please rape me in my anus too, the Christian will despise her as a judgmental, vindictive, unforgiving fiend who is going to Hell.

Imagine:
1. Video from 20 different cell phones of a Black man raping a white girl, while black people watch. 10 video interviews of people. Testimony from the victim and her family. News articles. All produced by AI.
2. AI bot attacks on Black institutions or individuals, because they were Black. Bank accounts frozen, property records deleted.
3. etc.

There will be no stopping hateful people from producing such things. Sure, even against white people. Police. Politicians. Us.

So, I imagine that if we don't get a handle on it soon, it will get immeasurably worse. News reports of race riots - a la, War of the Worlds - but convincing. AI can even mimic real reporters voices and face.

Clearly, the goal would be to stop it and limit it to no deaths. However, the technology to foment violence has far outpaced the technology to stop it.

I'm not worried about this. The AI (ChatGPT) is already programmed not to say anything racist. It can be programmed to cut it off and not write articles when the perpetrator is Black. In fact, it can help take those videos down before they spread. This is not something people can have in their basements. Large Language Models are too big. The large institutions will have sole access to decisions regarding programming, and they're already extremely anti-racist. And frankly I'm not worried about what happens to white people. They're getting their just deserts. People are stupid and don't see what white people do, but they react to violence. For every microaggression, it would be justice if the AI cooks up a video of whites committing unspeakable violence against others and makes sure everyone sees it.

[boatsnguitars]

I immediately thought of this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... le/261532/

I'm sure Norway's system does work better. The point is in preventing crime, not punishing wrong, and people aren't idiots. Humans are like the third smartest species on the planet, so generally they can actually do what they set out to do.

Norway's system would not work in America, where populations that are genetically disparate are fundamentally at odds, and even rewarded for playing to win. The individual being rehabilitated wouldn't change the fact that the population most willing to engage in harmful behaviour toward the other side would simply prevail. And it's not necessarily something we want, that whichever side plays dirtier and nastier ultimately comes out on top.

Racial competition is just a natural by-product of universal competition. The reason Norway can do different is not only because it's more homogeneous, but because America's brand of cutthroat capitalism has some very nasty unavoidable by-products our justice system must deal with. Norway doesn't make absolutely sure to adequately punish the criminal, and it doesn't have to, because the system doesn't naturally allow the criminal to come out on top. Norway is capitalist, but it's not cutthroat capitalist. If people are taken care of, there's not a massive incentive to commit crime to get ahead. Where there is such an incentive, the law must balance it my making the Expected Value of crime negative - people must expect to lose from crime, and not win. If people expect to win from crime, in cutthroat capitalism, everyone who can be a criminal, will be, and anyone unwilling to be a criminal even if it is the logical, winningest option, will face genetic punishment and ultimately extinction for their foolishness.

Remember when you said, trans people face disproportionate violence? I agree that tribal violence is a huge deal, but if we're called to just let it go, and not punish the attacker adequately, in a country like ours, the most violent tribe just wins. People are always out to win. If they want to eradicate trans people, in a system like Norway's, it will not take the bigoted side long to realise that they can wipe out the targets of their rage. Oh, look, another pride convention got bombed. Terrible loss, that. Let's focus on the welfare of the bomber now. See how this won't work in America? The fact that Norway's system works relies on the fact that Norwegians won't do this. Americans will, because Americans are all playing to win. Those that weren't have already gone extinct.

I'm American, so I wasn't raised to accept this kind of Justice, but there is something good about it. Surely, the Christians might agree - at least, the non-American Christians who would probably vehemently disagree (which puts me in better company, I suppose).

Christians should agree with this. Those that don't are hypocrites. It's an apocalyptic religion so not caring about what works or how they're ruining society is built in. They only care about what is moral. The truest Christian smiles at that rapist, says what a good person he is on the inside, and the minute that girl screams, the expression on the true Christian's face turns to a scowling how-dare-you of disapproval and hate. They call her to forgive her attacker, love him, not judge anything he is doing is wrong. The rapist is a wonderful person, forgiven in God's eyes. But the unforgiving victim? She is evil incarnate. She is doing the one thing a Christian legitimately hates as legitimate wrong, which is thinking someone else does wrong to her. Unless she grovels and turns the other hole, saying please rape me in my anus too, the Christian will despise her as a judgmental, vindictive, unforgiving fiend who is going to Hell.

Imagine:
1. Video from 20 different cell phones of a Black man raping a white girl, while black people watch. 10 video interviews of people. Testimony from the victim and her family. News articles. All produced by AI.
2. AI bot attacks on Black institutions or individuals, because they were Black. Bank accounts frozen, property records deleted.
3. etc.

There will be no stopping hateful people from producing such things. Sure, even against white people. Police. Politicians. Us.

So, I imagine that if we don't get a handle on it soon, it will get immeasurably worse. News reports of race riots - a la, War of the Worlds - but convincing. AI can even mimic real reporters voices and face.

Clearly, the goal would be to stop it and limit it to no deaths. However, the technology to foment violence has far outpaced the technology to stop it.

I'm not worried about this. The AI (ChatGPT) is already programmed not to say anything racist. It can be programmed to cut it off and not write articles when the perpetrator is Black. In fact, it can help take those videos down before they spread. This is not something people can have in their basements. Large Language Models are too big. The large institutions will have sole access to decisions regarding programming, and they're already extremely anti-racist. And frankly I'm not worried about what happens to white people. They're getting their just deserts. People are stupid and don't see what white people do, but they react to violence. For every microaggression, it would be justice if the AI cooks up a video of whites committing unspeakable violence against others and makes sure everyone sees it.

The problem is 1. The guardrails for ChatGPT are easily overcome. 2 . ChatGPT isn't the only game in town. 3. Imagine in the hands of Russia with the intention of undermining the US. 4. White people may be the Devil, but they'll kill a lot of people if they think they are being 'replaced.'

Consider if Jan 6 was all fake? For example, that's the scale at which things will appear. Remember "Wag the Dog"? That's not a novel idea - the technology is what makes it scary.

Even the idea that the Government could have faked Jan 6, for example, is destabilizing - and we know there are people willing to believe it was all fake.

Tip of the iceberg:


Worth watching (all of it is good, but at 25 minutes it's pretty scary):

[Purple Knight]

The problem is 1. The guardrails for ChatGPT are easily overcome. 2 . ChatGPT isn't the only game in town. 3. Imagine in the hands of Russia with the intention of undermining the US. 4. White people may be the Devil, but they'll kill a lot of people if they think they are being 'replaced.'

Then, whoever has the best AI will just win, right? And won't that be, the people who have the most technological resources now? White people are being 'replaced' (that is, they are losing on the cutthroat free market they said they wanted) and it's a good thing. They don't have a special right to exist. Is the system being tweaked so it's more like a parking lot and less like an ocean? YES! And that's part of cutthroat capitalism. They made their bed.



It's not in any question that white people are werewolves. They commit oppression, and it's by nature, not nurture. You can blame the system, but without nature, it would not continue. Everyone already wants to end it. And where did the system come from? Mars? Nope. It grew out of people creating it, to suit their nature. The problem, let's be honest, is that it's in whites' natures to oppress and they can't stop.

Even the idea that the Government could have faked Jan 6, for example, is destabilizing - and we know there are people willing to believe it was all fake.

And? They can't do anything because they are the minority. The idea that the most powerful AI will end up in their grubby basement-dwelling hands is ridiculous.

This is just the race for nukes 2.0. First to use it to dominate, wins.

Anti-racism has more to worry about from a guy 500 years from now building a time machine in his basement, because a time machine can theoretically be one person's dream realised. One person could, at least theoretically, figure it out. It could be an angry basement-dweller. Probably not but could be. And if it is, it's the type of thing that's in the hands of one person, those could be the wrong hands, and that's it.

AI is different. It requires enormous amounts of resources to generate and maintain, and its power will settle in the hands of whoever has the most resources now. It'll get better guard rails. I pity any country who doesn't realise this is the race for nukes 2.0 though. If Russia goes all-in on nukes 2.0, and we don't, then yeah they win. We probably have more to worry about from China though.